People have been complaining about the usage of dishonorable tactics in warfare as far back as Paris using his bow to kill Achilles from a safe distance in the Trojan War.

Funny enough, in this particular case, if you look at Judaism's history they've been pretty much always averse to fighting up-close and personal with the enemy (the 'honorable' way, as agreed upon by most pre-gunpowder civilizations from the Mycenaean Greeks to medieval Christian Europeans & Muslim Saracens alike). David taking down Goliath with a sling is only the most obvious example. The Tribe of Benjamin's elite regiment was mentioned in the Book of Judges to be composed entirely of left-handed slingers. The Israelites aren't mentioned as using war chariots (the heavy cavalry of that period, at least in the Middle East - cataphracts wouldn't be a thing for many centuries after the fall of Israel and Judah) in any significant number ever IIRC, it's always their enemies who are fielding chariots against their own comparatively lightly-equipped forces. And they famously fought as skirmishers with a heavy reliance on guerrilla tactics against the Seleucids (successfully) as well as the Romans (to much less success).

Even if one subscribes to the Khazar origin hypothesis for today's Jews this still holds up, since those guys were (like most nomadic hordes) primarily horse-archers whose strategy relied on raiding & avoiding contact with the foe as much as possible. The Jews have been reliant on ranged weapons and/or subversive tactics (either militarily like the Maccabees' campaign of night raids & hit-and-run attacks, or socioeconomically as has also been well documented) to win their wars for basically as long as records about them have existed, Samson and David's gibborim (elite royal guards) really stand out as anomalies for being brute-force heroes more in line with non-Semitic civilizations' sensibilities who explicitly wielded melee weapons or just used their bare hands to defeat their enemies.